Temple & Crook Ltd v Capital and Counties Property Co Ltd
Temple & Crook Ltd v Capital and Counties Property Co Ltd
- 1990
- Estates Gazette (1990) 38 EG 118-120(2) .
ChD 18 May 1990. Application for leave to appeal by tenants (T) from an arbitrator`s decision in relation to a rent review clause in leases of two adjoining shops. The determination of the rent had been referred to arbitration , and had to be determined on the basis of an open market value for leasehold premises held on a lease subject to the actual terms and conditions of the subject lease. The approaches adopted by the rival surveyors varied; the landlords` surveyor using comparables and T`s surveyor, the profits method of valuation. The arbitrator decided the rent should be considerably more than that contended by the tenants, but only slightly over half contended by the landlords. T sought leave to appeal. The Judge concluded that the case was a `one-off` case which related to the last review period; the arbitrator had made no `obvious error of law` and held that the `more lenient test` was not satisfied as he did not entertain any suspicion that the arbitrator was wrong. Leave t
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
CORNWALL COAST COUNTRY CLUB V CARDGRANGE LTD
IPSWICH B C V FISONS PLC
ChD 18 May 1990. Application for leave to appeal by tenants (T) from an arbitrator`s decision in relation to a rent review clause in leases of two adjoining shops. The determination of the rent had been referred to arbitration , and had to be determined on the basis of an open market value for leasehold premises held on a lease subject to the actual terms and conditions of the subject lease. The approaches adopted by the rival surveyors varied; the landlords` surveyor using comparables and T`s surveyor, the profits method of valuation. The arbitrator decided the rent should be considerably more than that contended by the tenants, but only slightly over half contended by the landlords. T sought leave to appeal. The Judge concluded that the case was a `one-off` case which related to the last review period; the arbitrator had made no `obvious error of law` and held that the `more lenient test` was not satisfied as he did not entertain any suspicion that the arbitrator was wrong. Leave t
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
CORNWALL COAST COUNTRY CLUB V CARDGRANGE LTD
IPSWICH B C V FISONS PLC